Page History
...
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Attendance Joining late: Sylvia Cadena, Mary UdumaAttendance Apologies: Judith Hellerstein, John Levine, Maarten Botterman (tentative), Elliot Noss |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Item #1: Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission. Staff to double-check that this is indeed a copy-paste text.
Action item #2: Staff to share document to the CCWG mailing list with additional language regarding mechanism C, as proposed by Erika. The document will be shared after today’s meeting, following review by staff.
Action item #3:
Action item #4: Page 30 - question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds.
Entire footnote to be included in the report as a reference.
Action item #5: Reference to ongoing work regarding GPI to be added in a footnote. Updates might be needed as the discussions progress regarding the creation of a global public interest framework.
Action item #6: Staff and the CCWG to review responses from ICANN org and board once they come in. In case mechanism C will be selected as number 1 choice, add detailed recommendations to the guidelines for the transition team.
Action item #7: Timeline for the next steps regarding the selection of the recommended mechanism to be adjusted by staff and co-chairs, once the responses come in.
NOTES
No roll call. Attendance will be taken from the zoom room. Ching is only on the phone bridge. Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Please remember to check your SOI/DOIs on a regular basis and update as needed.
2. Updated Draft Final Report – Outstanding Items and Clarifications
Agenda was slightly updated, compared to the version shared on the mailing list.
Action Item #1: Clarification about the use of language in relation to ICANN’s mission – “must be consistent with ICANN’s mission. Staff to double-check that this is indeed a copy-paste text.
Becky: for this particular provision, quote from the Board’s communication. Language should remain as it is, for this particular section
Next 3 bullet points are linked. (page 17, 19, 22. Response to Charter question 3, 5, 10). We added C back into the discussion.
Action item #2: Staff to share document to the CCWG mailing list with additional language regarding mechanism C, as proposed by Erika. The document will be shared after today’s meeting, following review by staff.
General comment from Marylin, where she raised that additional clarification might be needed. Keeping auction proceeds separate from operational budget. ICANN finance provided input. Will be included in the next iteration of the report. Xavier: provided language, that the overarching principle for the Auction Proceeds is not to be used to fund ICANN’s ongoing activities.
“Consistently with the intended purpose of auction proceeds as stated in the Applicant Guidebook, the general use of the auction proceeds should exclude the funding of any ICANN on-going operational activities. The auction proceeds are funds that result from circumstances that are unpredictable as to their occurrence, repetition, extent and sustainability. As a result, they cannot support the management of on-going activities, which require predictable and sustainable funding.” Proposed text to include on page 22
Marylin: Generally this is what we are looking for. This type of information might be clear to us, but not everyone is aware. It should refer to ICANN Org. Use “consistent” instead of “consistently”.
Ching: everything ICANN as an applicant does in mechanism A and B, they will fulfill the mission maintained and created by themselves. No additional requirements on ICANN’s shoulders. There is not much ICANN can do under mechanism A and B as an applicant.
Sam: ICANN cannot apply for funds from the foundation, once that money is transferred to the foundation. under C there is no way in which ICANN Org could apply.
Marilyn: I think it would be very difficult for ICANN to receive Auction Funds under Mechanism A and B. One reason that the CSG has been favoring Mechanism C is to have more independence, and I agree with Ching’s comments.
Action item #3:
Emily : Additional detail added as footnote on page 30. In response to a comment from Marylin asking for additional detail on that number.
Action item #4: Page 30 - question regarding interest/return on investment for auction funds.
Entire footnote to be included in the report as a reference.
Funds allocated at an investment account. 3 different firms have been used, to minimise risks. Investment policies are conservative. Listed also on the website. Relatively minimum and steady returns.
Xavier: make it clear in the report that the specific proceeds (.web) are not available for distribution, until the proceedings have been completed.
Suggestion by Maureen. Include reference to global public interest in Annex C. Becky suggested the text. Nearly impossible to define “global public interest”. Discussion paper, public session to be scheduled at ICANN66. Taking into account the decisions taken by the Board in response to a call by the Board to create a framework. Consultation ongoing. Footnote to be added, debate to be followed. Maybe addition to the guidance in the transition phase. Becky: There is no effort to “define” the GPI in a static way
Action item #5: Staff to add reference to ongoing work regarding GPI in a footnote. Updates might be needed as the discussions progress regarding the creation of a public interest framework.
3. Outstanding Questions for ICANN Org and Board:
Summary provided by Erika. Sam: The Board’s reply should be coming shortly. The ICANN org response will follow after that .
Marika: The group may need to consider if/how the responses impact the current draft of the final report, and/or the survey we intend to launch later this week.
Action item #6: Staff and the CCWG to review responses from ICANN org and board once they come in. In case mechanism C will be selected as number 1 choice, add detailed recommendations to the guidelines for the transition team.
4. Next Steps Regarding Selection of Recommended Mechanism(s)
Timeline, which was also shared on the previous meeting and on the mailing list.
a. Launch of the Indicative Survey on the mechanisms among the CCWG members. Friday 20 September
Content of the survey: do you want to recommend either 1, 2 or 3 mechanisms to the ICANN Board, secondly, Rank the mechanisms in their order of preference. Give members some time to consult with their respective groups.
b. Timing of the Definitive Survey – Monday 14 October
Potentially next call needed in 2 week’s time, to discuss refinements. CCWG members might need to carry out their tasks in a shorter time frame. Flexibility is possible in this suggested timeframe, but limited.
c. Indication of Level of Support for Mechanism and Recommendations – Friday 25 October
Finalise report based on definitive survey results and either publish for public comment or submit to Chartering organisations. ICANN66 session on Wed, 6 Nov (15:15-18:30) to present the final report.
d. Consensus Call
Language from the CCWG charter that talks about the consensus call and the requirements in place. Charter talks about the Decision-making process.
Action item #7 Timeline for the next steps regarding the selection of the recommended mechanism to be adjusted by staff and co-chairs, once the responses come in.
5. Whether to Have an Additional Public Comment Period
Before submitting the report to the chartering organisations for their considerations. Does the group already want to have the formal consensus call, to be included in the report? Or just an indication of the level of support? So that the community can see in which direction the group is leaning? Caution: nuanced process where the chairs look at the make-up of the positions, broadly supported, or are the views coming from one particular side of the community. It is not just a question of “counting noses”.
Another public comment round regarding the proposed final report: Erika believes we should do so. Marika: In that case, what are the questions you want to ask that help you finalise the report, and making sure the report is in line with the community’s expectations. Typically, a comment period is 40 days. Additional time when it runs during an ICANN public meeting. The CCWG will need to review the comments and respond to them. Adding a minimum of 2 months to the finalisation of the report.
Once the report goes to the CO, and then to the ICANN Board, the Board will typically also hold a comment period.
Report: This is the version circulated with the agenda for this call
Marilyn: we did substantive work. We do need to take public comment on that. Agrees with the suggested approach: invite to comment on the new work.
If there was public comment prior to CO seeking approval, the board might not require an additional comment period. on WS2, for example, the report was transmitted directly, without comment, after chartering org approval. there IS a requirement on the policy side and for specific reviews for public comment prior to Board consideration.
ICANN66 Session on Wed, 6 November (15:15-18:30). We might not need that much time to present the final report. Start of the meeting partially overlaps with another meeting.
6. AOB
next meeting? |
...